Karnataka HC Upholds ₹1.33 Lakh Award To Injured Bus Driver, Citing Lack Of Proof For His ₹30,000 Salary Claim

In brief

The question

Whether the claimant’s challenge to the assessment of his income and disability raised a substantial question of law permitting interference under Section 30(1) of the Act.

The court held

The Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal.

It also directed

The Commissioner’s award of ₹1,33,115 was left undisturbed.

01Facts

The claimant, employed by respondent No. 1 as a bus driver, sustained multiple fractures when the passenger bus he was driving was involved in a collision on 3 November 2019. He claimed compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, alleging a monthly salary of ₹30,000.

¶ 3–4

The Commissioner assessed whole-body disability at 9%, took monthly income as ₹12,000, and awarded ₹1,33,115, including medical expenses.

¶ 6–7

The claimant appealed under Section 30(1), seeking enhancement on the grounds that his income was undervalued and his disability was not properly assessed.

¶ 8

02Issues

i.Whether the claimant’s challenge to the assessment of his income and disability raised a substantial question of law permitting interference under Section 30(1) of the Act.

¶ 8–12, 19–21

ii.Whether the Commissioner’s findings on income, disability and compensation were perverse or otherwise legally unsustainable.

¶ 18–20

03Law Applied

Section 30(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 permits an appeal to the High Court only on a substantial question of law and in respect of the orders specified in that provision.

¶ 11

The appeal is not equivalent to a first appeal on facts; factual findings may be interfered with where they are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or founded on an error of law.

¶ 12, 18

Relying on North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha, the Court stated that matters such as employment, income and disability are ordinarily questions of fact, and that Section 30 appeals are confined to substantial questions of law.

¶ 16

It also relied on Golla Rajanna v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which recognises the Commissioner as the final fact-finding authority under the Act, absent perversity or a finding based on no evidence.

¶ 17

The Court further referred to Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali on appellate intervention where findings are perverse or essential legal and jurisdictional matters have not been addressed.

¶ 13, 15

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 96

04Reasoning

The Court found that the Commissioner had considered the doctor’s evidence and given reasons for assessing whole-body disability at 9%, notwithstanding the differing percentage attributed to the doctor in the record.

¶ 19

The claimant had not produced bank statements, pay slips, or other documentary proof of his asserted ₹30,000 monthly salary, nor examined his employer; the Commissioner therefore assessed income at ₹12,000 after considering the relevant notification.

¶ 19–20

The High Court concluded that these findings were based on the evidence and that the claimant had not established perversity or an error of law. Because the challenges concerned factual assessments of income and disability, they did not raise a substantial question of law under Section 30.

¶ 18–21